2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.

WRONG again, danielpalos. The Right of the people is what is protected by the Second Amendment. The militia is necessary, but it is the Right of the people that is protected from infringement.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.

danielpalos,

I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.

EVERY court citation I've cited disagrees with your view. I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control. Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.

John Adams, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people. We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the Right to keep and bear Arms. In fact, they do not. The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level. And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.

In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the Right.

Connecticut's 1650 code ordered that everyone “above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.

Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc. But, you have to be honest above all else.

America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty. The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from. They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos? Pretend they don't exist? You want it construed so that only a militia has the Right. The courts disagreed with you.

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law. So, the first state court decision disagreed with your interpretation. That is persuasive authority (in legalese) to disprove your claim.

In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment. There is MORE persuasive authority to debunk your claim.

A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That is even more persuasive authority that debunks your claim.

How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an absolute and unqualified Right to keep and bear Arms? When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:

The HOLDING in even the Heller decision refutes your interpretation. It was HELD:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A holding is the bottom line. And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Even without a state militia or the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.

How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?

You have to have a crime in order to administer justice. What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

 

[Humorme]

After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking. Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.

So, let's destroy all of his argument:

The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.

1) The militia, NOT the people and NOT the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording

2) The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the Right of the people

3) Natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

4) danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia. This is irrational and false. Here is a court ruling had to say:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!"

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT a militia "right;" it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.

danielpalos cannot overcome the facts. He is a self proclaimed socialist. Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before. And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism. IF anyone were "clueless," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "clueless," and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.

Wrong.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.

And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.

A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.

And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, sir, YOU ARE WRONG. The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent. For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute. The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing. I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread. You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the United States Supreme Court.

The problem you have is twofold:

Heller went into saying "Like most rights..." Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights. In English, that means that some rights ARE absolute. The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as absolute.

The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "living Constitution" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.

According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States


How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts did not support your position? And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people? Listen to our founders:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington

A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Patrick Henry

FWIW, I have never argued "inalienable" rights. They are irrelevant. That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.

Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - Unalienable

natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.

Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.

No, I am not. Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Yes, you ARE a troll. You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me. If you love men, that's on you. Leave me out of it. I'm not your "dear."

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS. IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT

There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual Right. That's not my opinion, sir. That is an irrefutable FACT.

 

[Humorme]

WRONG again, danielpalos. The Right of the people is what is protected by the Second Amendment. The militia is necessary, but it is the Right of the people that is protected from infringement.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.

danielpalos,

I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.

EVERY court citation I've cited disagrees with your view. I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control. Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.

John Adams, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people. We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the Right to keep and bear Arms. In fact, they do not. The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level. And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.

In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the Right.

Connecticut's 1650 code ordered that everyone “above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.

Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc. But, you have to be honest above all else.

America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty. The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from. They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos? Pretend they don't exist? You want it construed so that only a militia has the Right. The courts disagreed with you.

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law. So, the first state court decision disagreed with your interpretation. That is persuasive authority (in legalese) to disprove your claim.

In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment. There is MORE persuasive authority to debunk your claim.

A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That is even more persuasive authority that debunks your claim.

How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an absolute and unqualified Right to keep and bear Arms? When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:

The HOLDING in even the Heller decision refutes your interpretation. It was HELD:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A holding is the bottom line. And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Even without a state militia or the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.

How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?

You have to have a crime in order to administer justice. What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking. Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.

So, let's destroy all of his argument:

The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.

1) The militia, NOT the people and NOT the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording

2) The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the Right of the people

3) Natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

4) danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia. This is irrational and false. Here is a court ruling had to say:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!"

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT a militia "right;" it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.

danielpalos cannot overcome the facts. He is a self proclaimed socialist. Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before. And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism. IF anyone were "clueless," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "clueless," and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.

the People are the Militia; only well regulated Militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.

A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is not gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

dear, You are a troll. The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are not. It really is that simple, except to the right wing.

I'm not your faggoty ass fuck buddy. Don't refer to me as "dear." And quit reporting me if you're going to keep addressing me as if I were into your homosexual brotherhood. I'm not.

You are the troll here. Regardless of whether or not a militia is well regulated, the United States Supreme Court said you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms, unconnected to the militia.

I don't need to report anyone who is merely, full of fallacy. I have a good argument, some clue and a Cause.

No you do not have a "cause." . You have never stated any cause, despite numerous attempts to get you off your high horse and state same and you are the most clueless poster on this board.

 

[Humorme]

WRONG again, danielpalos. The Right of the people is what is protected by the Second Amendment. The militia is necessary, but it is the Right of the people that is protected from infringement.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.

danielpalos,

I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.

EVERY court citation I've cited disagrees with your view. I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control. Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.

John Adams, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people. We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the Right to keep and bear Arms. In fact, they do not. The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level. And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.

In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the Right.

Connecticut's 1650 code ordered that everyone “above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.

Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc. But, you have to be honest above all else.

America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty. The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from. They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos? Pretend they don't exist? You want it construed so that only a militia has the Right. The courts disagreed with you.

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law. So, the first state court decision disagreed with your interpretation. That is persuasive authority (in legalese) to disprove your claim.

In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment. There is MORE persuasive authority to debunk your claim.

A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That is even more persuasive authority that debunks your claim.

How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an absolute and unqualified Right to keep and bear Arms? When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:

The HOLDING in even the Heller decision refutes your interpretation. It was HELD:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A holding is the bottom line. And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Even without a state militia or the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.

How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?

You have to have a crime in order to administer justice. What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

According to Wikipedia:

"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no "terms" for a Right. Either you have the Right or you do not. It's not a negotiation. America was not founded on socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.

And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.

A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.

And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, sir, YOU ARE WRONG. The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent. For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute. The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing. I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread. You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the United States Supreme Court.

The problem you have is twofold:

Heller went into saying "Like most rights..." Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights. In English, that means that some rights ARE absolute. The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as absolute.

The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "living Constitution" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.

According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States


How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts did not support your position? And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people? Listen to our founders:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington

A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Patrick Henry

FWIW, I have never argued "inalienable" rights. They are irrelevant. That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.

Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - Unalienable

natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.

Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.

No, I am not. Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Yes, you ARE a troll. You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me. If you love men, that's on you. Leave me out of it. I'm not your "dear."

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS. IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT

There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual Right. That's not my opinion, sir. That is an irrefutable FACT.

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?

 

[danielpalos]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.

danielpalos,

I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.

EVERY court citation I've cited disagrees with your view. I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control. Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.

John Adams, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people. We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the Right to keep and bear Arms. In fact, they do not. The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level. And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.

In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the Right.

Connecticut's 1650 code ordered that everyone “above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.

Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc. But, you have to be honest above all else.

America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty. The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from. They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos? Pretend they don't exist? You want it construed so that only a militia has the Right. The courts disagreed with you.

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law. So, the first state court decision disagreed with your interpretation. That is persuasive authority (in legalese) to disprove your claim.

In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment. There is MORE persuasive authority to debunk your claim.

A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That is even more persuasive authority that debunks your claim.

How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an absolute and unqualified Right to keep and bear Arms? When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:

The HOLDING in even the Heller decision refutes your interpretation. It was HELD:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A holding is the bottom line. And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Even without a state militia or the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.

How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?

You have to have a crime in order to administer justice. What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

According to Wikipedia:

"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no "terms" for a Right. Either you have the Right or you do not. It's not a negotiation. America was not founded on socialism.

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.

 

[Humorme]

Unfortunately, sir, YOU ARE WRONG. The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent. For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute. The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing. I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread. You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the United States Supreme Court.

The problem you have is twofold:

Heller went into saying "Like most rights..." Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights. In English, that means that some rights ARE absolute. The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as absolute.

The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "living Constitution" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.

According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second president of the United States


How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts did not support your position? And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people? Listen to our founders:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington

A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Patrick Henry

FWIW, I have never argued "inalienable" rights. They are irrelevant. That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.

Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - Unalienable

natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.

Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.

No, I am not. Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Yes, you ARE a troll. You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me. If you love men, that's on you. Leave me out of it. I'm not your "dear."

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS. IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT

There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual Right. That's not my opinion, sir. That is an irrefutable FACT.

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.

Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.

No, I am not. Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Yes, you ARE a troll. You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me. If you love men, that's on you. Leave me out of it. I'm not your "dear."

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS. IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT

There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual Right. That's not my opinion, sir. That is an irrefutable FACT.

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.

 

[Humorme]

danielpalos,

I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.

EVERY court citation I've cited disagrees with your view. I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control. Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.

John Adams, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people. We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the Right to keep and bear Arms. In fact, they do not. The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level. And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.

In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the Right.

Connecticut's 1650 code ordered that everyone “above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.

Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc. But, you have to be honest above all else.

America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty. The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from. They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos? Pretend they don't exist? You want it construed so that only a militia has the Right. The courts disagreed with you.

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law. So, the first state court decision disagreed with your interpretation. That is persuasive authority (in legalese) to disprove your claim.

In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment. There is MORE persuasive authority to debunk your claim.

A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That is even more persuasive authority that debunks your claim.

How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an absolute and unqualified Right to keep and bear Arms? When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:

The HOLDING in even the Heller decision refutes your interpretation. It was HELD:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A holding is the bottom line. And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Even without a state militia or the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.

How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?

You have to have a crime in order to administer justice. What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

According to Wikipedia:

"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no "terms" for a Right. Either you have the Right or you do not. It's not a negotiation. America was not founded on socialism.

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.

So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your unalienable Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The 14th Amendment Clarified, Citizenship, Constitution of the United States of America, Supreme Law

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America

 

[danielpalos]

How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?

You have to have a crime in order to administer justice. What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

According to Wikipedia:

"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no "terms" for a Right. Either you have the Right or you do not. It's not a negotiation. America was not founded on socialism.

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.

So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your unalienable Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America

You were the one quibbling. Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

We have laws, not natural rights in open court.

 

[Humorme]

danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.

Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.

No, I am not. Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Yes, you ARE a troll. You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me. If you love men, that's on you. Leave me out of it. I'm not your "dear."

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS. IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT

There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual Right. That's not my opinion, sir. That is an irrefutable FACT.

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.

The court system IS public justice. No more phony arguments, please. Get real.

 

[Humorme]

You have to have a crime in order to administer justice. What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

According to Wikipedia:

"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no "terms" for a Right. Either you have the Right or you do not. It's not a negotiation. America was not founded on socialism.

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.

So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your unalienable Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America

You were the one quibbling. Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

We have laws, not natural rights in open court.

Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, unalienable Rights.

 

[danielpalos]

No, I am not. Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Yes, you ARE a troll. You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me. If you love men, that's on you. Leave me out of it. I'm not your "dear."

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS. IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT

There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual Right. That's not my opinion, sir. That is an irrefutable FACT.

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.

The court system IS public justice. No more phony arguments, please. Get real.

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.

 

[danielpalos]

In Nature, might makes right. Social justice is for political animals.

According to Wikipedia:

"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no "terms" for a Right. Either you have the Right or you do not. It's not a negotiation. America was not founded on socialism.

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.

So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your unalienable Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America

You were the one quibbling. Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

We have laws, not natural rights in open court.

Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, unalienable Rights.

You are simply special pleading. They do it whenever a crime is alleged to have occurred and comes before the Court, so they can do their job.

 

[Humorme]

Yes, you ARE a troll. You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me. If you love men, that's on you. Leave me out of it. I'm not your "dear."

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS. IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT

There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an individual Right. That's not my opinion, sir. That is an irrefutable FACT.

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.

The court system IS public justice. No more phony arguments, please. Get real.

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.

The more you post, the more silly your posts get. A well regulated militia (the military in your interpretation - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues. A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.

There is no special privilege for them. The right is an individual Right, sir. It is not a militia Right. The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.

 

[Humorme]

According to Wikipedia:

"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no "terms" for a Right. Either you have the Right or you do not. It's not a negotiation. America was not founded on socialism.

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.

So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your unalienable Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America

You were the one quibbling. Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

We have laws, not natural rights in open court.

Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, unalienable Rights.

You are simply special pleading. They do it whenever a crime is alleged to have occurred and comes before the Court, so they can do their job.

This is not a pleading. You are not a king. You're a poster on a discussion board.

 

[danielpalos]

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.

The court system IS public justice. No more phony arguments, please. Get real.

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.

The more you post, the more silly your posts get. A well regulated militia (the military in your interpretation - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues. A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.

There is no special privilege for them. The right is an individual Right, sir. It is not a militia Right. The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.

So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your unalienable Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America

You were the one quibbling. Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

We have laws, not natural rights in open court.

Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, unalienable Rights.

You are simply special pleading. They do it whenever a crime is alleged to have occurred and comes before the Court, so they can do their job.

This is not a pleading. You are not a king. You're a poster on a discussion board.

Nothing but red herrings; how typical of the right wing.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

Courts do not interpret the legal meaning of words. SMFH They answer the question posed based on the discussions and intended meaning of the Congressmen initiating the law and passing the law, as to whether it was a Constitutional Law or not, based on the right of the person or the people.

The only absolute right is the right to bear arms, to defend yourself or the state.

The right to keep arms is not absolute and was granted with stipulation, 1689 EBoR.

 

[Humorme]

When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts. The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words. Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "absolute" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.

The court system IS public justice. No more phony arguments, please. Get real.

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.

The more you post, the more silly your posts get. A well regulated militia (the military in your interpretation - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues. A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.

There is no special privilege for them. The right is an individual Right, sir. It is not a militia Right. The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.

A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is not gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.

NOBODY is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.